Thread: Commercial vs Recreational Hunting in NZ

I have slightly more respect for people who are living their lives 'entirely wrong' by societies standards (within legal means!), but who are honest with 'WHY' they're doing what they're doing (i.e not trying to rationalize it) - than people who only pay lip service and go through the motions of 'appearing' to do the correct things, but not actually fully committing to whatever it is.

Time for some anecdotal examples!

E.g Climate change sympathizers who denounce the beliefs/actions of those who aren't environmentally conscious, but who still drive fuel hungry cars, take expensive international flights (business class) to attend climate change conferences, buy the latest 'greatest' electronic technology (made from oil) etc. It's laughable. Do you really give a f*ck about the environment?!

E.g DOC workers who are hell bent on culling every introduced mammal there is, and doing it in the name of 'conservation', but then going out and shooting animals for leisure in their own time and 'enjoying' the resource. On one hand, the deer are the work of the devil, and on the other they provide 'pleasure' in the form of recreation?

E.g Our GOVT endorsing the notion that possums should be killed at every opportunity and treated like trash (because they're introduced, and they have a negative effect on our native bush), but the introduced trout is sacred and takes precedence over our NATIVE fish?? Wait - I thought introduced = bad? Oh; if it brings in revenue it's all good. I forgot.

There are so many contradictions when it comes to environmentalism, that it's just a headache trying to make sense of it all.

I'm a proponent of instilling balance, mitigating detrimental, human induced influences on the environment, and generating revenue via natural resources...but without the bullshit. Bullshit clouds everything. If it's okay for 'certain' introduced species to take priority over certain native species, then just tell it like it is (i.e It's not about native vs introduced, but about nurturing the existence of species that are playing active and productive roles within the ecosystem). But that will completely rip apart any argument which puts certain native biota on a pedestal, simply by virtue of them being 'native'...because, people will argue - well, what is the Takahe actually contributing? Other than being a national icon which we can all feel giddy about and exploit for tourism purposes.

When people aren't straight forward. When people try and contort the truth - that's when everything turns pear shaped.

It's fun to speculate.